-- semper fi funds, when they arrived in the morning, they arrive with a degree of skepticism. the team, the cohesion, basically they have restored the trust. i would say that i do not want it. trust in the system, trust in others. i think that my work through the semper fi policy because of the mental health professionals who have come in through the

program and really advertised and allowed me to speak with other sponsors who look at best practices. after a long time you talk about mental health issues. we never talk about that. now those programs the trust is going to come from the nco. overcoming the skepticism is

difficult, but it is happening. especially units that have deployed 4 and 5 times, younger officers are seeing the power of water platoon leader can do to identify problems when they are still in the category of combat stress injuries and not migrated to illness. that is the strength of the marine corps's program. you can start the dialogue right wait six don't have to months after he returns and he has a problem when these by himself. we tried to restore -- and

successfully, because all of these veterans have volunteered their services. we got 35 marines in the past week. we had an individual travel all the way from oregon six times. his brother was killed and he is giving up a week of his time. we had someone from wyoming. these people are giving of themselves for me, so the chasm of trust is taking care of pretty quickly. by wednesday of a seven-day program these people start realizing these people care for me. then you are on the road to identification. it is when the demons start coming out. that is when you see that he feels guilty as the company commander but has never shared that. when you front a guy has been

behind the curtains in his own apartment in racine, wisconsin, and the only person he has talked to was his clinician and never divulged to his commission that he and accidentally killed a marine because of their sectors aligned with each other. the power of the core and the power of the army at, clearly is trust. if you can restore that, then you are on the road to a good program. there's no shortage of people that come and chronicled their experience with the condition and the clinician simply does not understand the individual at the " enough to build that bond of trust. >> general, thank you for your service to our country and for the veterans and for working on the well-being of our nation's service members.

>> wants a veteran takes a step to reach out for help, we need to knock down any potential barrier to care. clearly the report that your team produced shows a huge gap between the time that the va says it takes to get veterans mental health care and the reality of how long it actually takes them to get scene at facilities across the country. va has concurred with all your recommendations, but it is clear we all have real concerns, because some of these issues have been problems for years. can you address a question of what you think it would take to get the va to get this right this time? >> i think, to begin with,

the veteran population that is dispersed across the country and the va is not evenly dispersed across the country. the veterans that go to facilities receive care and va is probably trying to address t he current plan for 1600 people. the first issue is to realize that you have a problem where you have facilities and where you don't have facilities. the second problem that has been stated is there are not enough mental health providers to hire off the street in a timely fashion. here's something like 1200 psychiatry graduates per year in this country from our medical schools. there's a limited pool and there's a great deal of demand for mental health providers. in our discussion with private

sector, they said because of the economy and thee demand has gone up in the last year's. we were asked several years ago to look at access to mental health care in montana. it was a very interesting review for me in that montana va had linked up with the community mental health centers in montana. i may be out of date by couple years, because we did it a couple years ago, but by allowing veterans to go to those mental health centers, which were usually staffed by psychologists, social workers, and usually not by clinicians, they were able to dramatically improve the access to get folks to talk to competent people in their neighborhoods, in their cities to get some care.

i think, in order to make that care cohesive, you have to be able to get medical records back-and-forth so there is coordination of care. so i think the all hands on deck idea is one that i fully endorse and one where if i look at some of the cases, tragic cases we have looked at in the past, it was not infrequent for veterans to show up at the community mental health center in their town and because they were veterans there were then sent to the va and there were not accepted or there was no payment mechanism or there was no authority. so i think that would be useful. second, you're really do have to sit down, and as bad as metrics are, you do have to sit down and model what you are going to do and figure out what demand is,

and tried to lay out the business case for what you are doing. >> is that the focus of the va today? >> i don't believe for mental health they have the level of business plan they should half. nor do i think they should have it for most medical specialties are. it's the one to comment? >> i would like to say the original question review said what was needed to fix this, i really believe va needs to focus on the data integrity of the information they are collecting along with the new set of metrics. i think they need to hold the medical facility directors accountable to ensure that data integrity. if we have seen scheduling practices that resulted in gaming the system to make performance metrics look better at the end of the day over the past seven years, they need a

culture change. to get that culture change, i really think they need to hold the facility directors accountable for how well the data is actually being captured. the auditors that actually did the work in the field at the sites had general observations that the focus was always on the gauleiters, who was not getting care outside the 14-day window. limitedwas really very t focus on how well the scheduler is were capturing that information. that is the information that starts to identify demand. starts to tell you what type of services you are going to need and whether you need to address emergency care or strategically address scare over the long term, you have to have reliable information. coupled with a positive step to increase the staffing, that is clearly very important. >> thank you very much. senator brown.

>> thank you very much. i just want to get back to the bonus issue. $5.9 million in the budget, and an increase next year, the va gave out in 2011 $194 million to senior executive service employees. do you think that is appropriate? >> sir, undersecretary shinseki 's leadership at va we have done an extensive review of performance bonuses and have reduced those in both the number of outstanding ratings and the dollar amount that has been implemented. question no. was actually higher at one time? >> it was.

we have taken this very much to heart. let me offer that the integrity of our performance measures and the integrity of our scheduling system, the fidelity with which we implement these and adhere to them that are veteran centric is extremely important to the department. so we take very seriously the comments that have been made by the attorney general and we will rigorously follow up. we have been exercising the integrity of the system can and it is obvious that some of what we put at in in performance measures, particularly as a datas it relates to could get us into this discussion. what sometimes happens is the scheduler will say i want to schedule you for when you want to next come in.

the veteran might say when are you next available, i would be happy to take whatever is there. that is a trick bag we need to get out of. >> i understand that, but my question is focusing on bonuses. i understand there are holes that we need to fix. this has been an issue since the or 2005. the 2000's it's not perfect and i understand that. i am curious, what is the average salary for these people getting the bonuses? >> can we take that for the record? >> i will - what are the do youes and how yo justify tax dollars to go to pay for bonuses where this should be part of their job? what do you think about the opinion of tying the bonuses to

quality rather than quantity? what do you think about that possibility? >> senator, my opinion with the bonuses is what i think you mentioned already. it is doing your job. you are doing your job up to par, you are rewarded for that. what i was always taught for my 14 years in the military is your bonus is your reward for going above and beyond. clearly i am not seeing that in the treatment of veterans in the care that they need. so my opinion -- >> you think that money could be used somewhere better? $194 million? >> i do. general, thank you, once again. why do you think veterans are reluctant to share their experiences with a clinician and

you found during that week that so many folks have opened up? is it a trust issue? >> it is clearly a trust issue. there's operational stressed. >> and what do you think the va could do to establish the bond that you have? >> it i think the issue is a lack of trust, the fact that quite honestly many clinicians do not understand the nuances of combat stress. in fact, some of the tools being built now are much like an accident on 95. combat stress is very different. it's very personal. it is something that people really have to have a feeling of trust with someone else to share those experiences.

along with a person waits for the reconciliation process, the more difficult problem will be. i think that we need to provide more opportunities for some of these people in the mental- health community. as i mentioned before, i don't think 19 1900 more people will solve the problem unless the person can really connect to the individual that will inspire him or her to share their perspective. >> thank you all very much. >> dr., at this committee pose in november mental health hearing, you said that you were not aware of any bonus issue and not fully reporting waiting times. you heard the testimony about a e manchester v a regularly using the system.

now that you have read the ig report,ead the a want to ask the same question i asked in november. you believe va facilities are gaming the system and not fully reporting wait time? >> we have zero tolerance for that, senator. we will continue our audits and reviews that this is not occurring. this is not a practice that can be condoned. >> you have heard that he talked about the manchester va, increasing their mental health workload numbers in order to get additional resources despite not having enough staff to support that growth. the quantity over quality that is stated. the result is veterans are not getting the care they need. i'm really shocked that the va

allowed providers to be put in that kind of dilemma where they have to choose between following directions from their leadership and following the ethics of their profession. let me ask, what are you going to do to ensure that the quality of care is not being sacrificed as you continue to meet these timeline standards? >> it is a multifold approach underwayward that's and we have been implementing. first, we need to ensure the staffing model we will continue to perfect, that we have sufficient staffing on board to serve the needs of the veterans. we also need to look at the productivity of that. there's a productivity directive being developed to ensure that care is being rendered in a productive way. so come and, we need to make sure that we have the measures in place to ensure that the

veterans are receiving timely care in accordance with. their with if i might just go back to an earlier discussion of senator brown, as we were discussing those veterans who are most , in crisis,n the ineed we should be sure to respond to those. but certainly in the case where we would not have an inpatient psychiatric bed available, we would feed that out to the private community. that is something that should happen in order to ensure the veteran is cared for. it is fundamentally important that we get the ability for this. what i was trying to emphasize with senator brown is that we must have visibility and we must respond to those most in crisis. and if that requires we feed out

because we don't have the best available or something, that we do that. we would only do that after making sure we don't have the capacity. isk is to part of the res hand off to the private sector. it is important we take care of those veterans. >> let me go back to the scheduling issue, since that is critically important. back in 2005 and again in 2007 the ig police reports that highlighted problems with the patient scheduling, including the calculation of wait times and practices by schedulers. despite having heard about this for seven years now, here we are today. why is it so difficult to address these problems and should be war optimistic that it's going to happen this time?

>> it reestablished the business needs, madam chairman, for scheduling, including a vision of a modern scheduling package that would among other things provide patients the ability to make their own appointments. >> implementation date? >> we have published in december of 2011 and i would like to table for the record when we will be implementing. we are under way in the new initiative. >> doctor, do you believe that scoring tappan? -- that is going to happen? " i don't have enough information to comment. i would have to check to see where they are on this. this has been an issue for a number of years and has not been solved. i'm not aware of the specifics of what he's talking about. >> ok, i have several other questions i will submit for the record. i do want to thank all of you for being here today and sharing your views.

critically, access to va health care in a timely fashion is absolutely essential, especially as we have a growing number of men and women returning from war where this is a signature issue and and a signature wound that we are very cognizant of. we need to be prepared for this. this committee is focused on this and wants answers and follow-up and not just this to be another hearing but that real action is taken. so, i appreciate the va stepping up to this today. i appreciate them accepting the ig reports. i really appreciate the ig for all the work you did and the intense amount of time and a large number of your resources focused on this. and the other witnesses, thank you very much for being here today. i want to make clear this is not something we will have a hearing on and leave and go do something else tomorrow. this has to be taken care of.

we owe it to these men and women. i don't want to continue to hear that anybody is gaming the system. i want to know that the action plan is being put in place to make sure that the hiring you have announced is actually taking place. if there are barriers to that, we want to know about it. i want to know how you decided which were going to get the practitioners that you have outlined. and i want to know from on the ground there's a real connection to the va here at central office and that this is not just another hearing in washington and the action on the ground continues to be the antidote to this committee. this is very and man critical. i think we've made some progress, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. i think the nation expects that of us. i intend to stand up to it and

i'm calling on you to do the same. i do want to take a second and congratulate the inspector general on getting her recent position. this hearing is adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the supreme court heard the oral argument on arizona's immigration law yesterday. we will get reactions from outside the court, next. and we will talk to the house armed services committee chairman, california congressman buck mckeon, and connecticut congressman joe courtney, on the washington journal. >> born in a north korean war camp, it was the only world he had ever known. he's also the only one to ever have escaped from camp 14. >> his first memory from the age of 4 was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch someone gets shot. public executions in the camp or

held every few weeks. this was a way of punishing people who violated camp rules and of terrorizing the 20,000 people to 40,000 people who live in the camps to obey the rules from then on. >> sunday it, his journey out of north korea and learning about society and civilization at 8:00 on c-span,. on may 6, look for our interview that coincides with the release of "passage of power" by caro, on lyndon johnson. >> arizona governor jan brewer is encouraged by the supreme court oral arguments on the constitutionality of arizona's immigration law. she and the lead attorney paul clement spoke with reporters shortly after the supreme court

heard the case. the court is expected to decide by the end of the term in june. you can listen to the arguments friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> wow. it is -- >> governor, you must be encouraged by how it went in there? >> i am encouraged by what we were all able to hear today. i thought the hearing went very well. i feel very confident as i walked out of there that we will get a favorable ruling in late june. i am very impressed with the that they gave us extra time and that gave us the significance of how important

this ruling will be not only to to thete of arizona but united states of america. i think the questions and the responses just as far as federal rights, arizona sovereignty, that we do have a responsibility to do what we can. i feel they gave and the comments were made that arizona has a right and i as the governor, i felt, was somewhat assured that i had a right to protect the citizens of arizona. >> there is a federal law that makes much of arizona law illegal. >> i believe that the senate bill 1070 basically mirrors federal law.

i think the question is can law- enforcement tea party-backed? -- can law-that la enforcement be part of that? and we robbery at banks interact. all we are asking is that they work collectively with us to uphold the laws. we believe in the rule of law, which brings to mind part of the questioning was why was the federal government not wanting to enforce the law? i thought that was very striking. why don't they want to enforce the federal law? do they want to just selectively picks a portion of the law that they want to enforce? so it was very, very revealing today. i think that we will succeed.

and i'm looking forward to june. thank you. >> one of the comments made by the government [inaudible] >> i would assume that it would be incarcerations if in fact they had broken law on the first offense. they even discredit - some of the federal administration discredit the fact there are that many illegals in arizona. >> sounds like 400,000 people could end up locked up in arizona.

>> if they are breaking the law, there is that possibility, i would assume. >> do you believe the president brought this case in order to strengthen his appeal to latino voters in a november election? >> i will answer the last part of what i think i heard or maybe you want to repeat it? >> the you believe president obama and the democrats in the justice to provide brought this case in order not so much to deal with what they say is the problem with arizona law but to shore up his appeal to latino voters in the november election? >> i do. i believe this is an election year and it was staged at the time they knew this was coming up and they are planning to the latino community and they are

scare cardse arescarthat to generate support for the election. >> there were people that said you signed the bill to help your election. >> i doubt that very seriously. i signed the bill after reading it and amending it as it went through the legislature to make sure that it absolutely did what we wanted it to do. that was to address the terrible situation arizona was facing a, making sure all the while knowing that it would be a lightning rod in some arenas, that the race card would be thrown out there. racial profiling is wrong. it is against the law. we amended it to make sure that. would not that and now exactly what we thought was going to happen has been exacerbated throughout a lot of the media.

that was because we needed protection for the citizens of arizona. and what arizona was experiencing as far as the cost element in education and health care and incarceration. >> let me ask a question that was asked by chuck schumer yesterday it -- >> i just want to take this opportunity to recognize our counsel paul clement and his staff. they were absolutely stellar. they have kept us briefed. they have worked hard and diligent. i know that with the council we have, that we have done the very best job that we can do for the people of arizona and in an effort to support the rule of law. paul, do you want to speak? >> sure. obviously, the court has heard

the case and we were gratified by the justices giving consideration to the case, so thorough that they kept both lawyers at the podium a little longer than scheduled. that underscores the seriousness of the issue. i would say, from a lawyer's perspective, this case is really about issues of federalism, in particular, although the focus has been on arizona law, as it should be, in some respects for the purposes of the justices, the federal statutes are every bit as important as arizona's statutes. what you saw here, i think, was a real understanding on the justice's part that much of what arizona has done in the statute is really accept the invitation of the federal statutes themselves that really put a premium on trying to get communication between state and local law-enforcement and federal officials. and so, although a lot of the focus has been on the paris on approach, i think you saw the

justices equally focus on what congress has done panned the burden on the federal government in the case is to show the conflict between what the federal government has done and what arizona has done in its own approach. grateful for the opportunity to represent governor jan brewer and the state. it was a great working relationship starting at the process of trying to get the court interested in the case after the ninth circuit decision. gratified when the court accepted the case and gratified that the court heard it today and gave us bonus time at the argument. >> you went back and forth with the justices and several justices' pointed out that [inaudible] >> i thought it was certainly very encouraging that all the justices thoroughly understood the way that these various laws operate. they understood what was at

issue in the case and what was not at issue very early in the federal government arguments the chief justice essentially started things off by making clear that this is not a case about profiling, this is not really a case about the fourth amendment, it is a case about the preemption and the relationship between the federal law and the state law. one of the things that is a misconception a lot of people have, but the state law does not really authorized officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it simply makes its systematic and it does have the effect of overriding some local policies that contrary to federal statute actually predicted local state and local officers from communicating with the federal government. that is what makes the federal government goes argument difficult, because they have to argue that this center is not with a federal statute but with their enforcement posture. a number of the justices' pointed out that they retain the ultimate decision about it who to prosecute federally and who

to remove from this country. the principal provision of the arizona law that was discussed today it puts the federal officials in a position to know who they have in the country and then decide for themselves what to do is a matter of federal law. >> [inaudible] >> i think, certainly, he brought up initial back in the heinz case, but a lot of the justices were of the view that is not something they could take into account in this challenge. in that sense the justices for the most part really were focused on the specific issue of the interaction between the federal statutes and the state law. thank you.

>> i am an attorney with the american civil liberties union. we and a coalition of other civil rights organizations including the national immigration law center has filed an action against 1070 even before the justice department did. there are three telling things about today's arguments. >> could i ask you guys, please, we are doing this year, either go there or wait. , wait. >> there are three telling things about today's argument. first, several justices right out of the box expressed serious concerns about the civil liberties. as a result of those serious civil liberties impact, a state of arizona has had to narrow its position substantially and is now defending 1070 merely as a

provision for notification of the federal government, but that is not actually what it does. that's clear from the statute as well as what we heard today. it became clear through the course of today's arguments that the justices are concerned about a system of mass incarceration that is going to catch u.s. citizens and immigrants who are lawfully in the u.s. it became clear today that there's no federal system that would readily clear and u.s. citizen who is stop during a traffic violation and would be held at the side of the road for an hour or more while their asked approve their right to be in their own country. i think that the courts will ultimately realize that and strike down this law. ang, the director of the aclu immigrants projects. >> my name is maria elena.

i am executive director of the national immigration law center along with a broad coalition of civil rights organizations. we it art in the class action lawsuits that we filed against arizona which in addition to raising the pre-emption claim, we are also arguing that it violates the first and fourth amendment claims equal protection and due process claims. these claims were not before the supreme court today, however it was clear that the justices were concerned about the impact this would have on u.s. citizens, whether in fact there were any government databases with inaccuracies that exist today were not able to clear a u.s. citizen and they would be detained. the justices also were very concerned about the impact this would have on the citizen from the mexico who is using the new mexico driver's license and traveling through arizona and the impact on that individual.

they understood the complexities of what it means from a person who is brown to go jogging without id and whether that person would be detained. we are confident the decision that's ultimately will come out from the supreme court will be narrowly focused decision and will allow us to go back to court and continue litigating our case and eventually 1070 will be struck down as unconstitutional based on all our other constitutional claims, because it is an american statute. it is a statute that is resulting today in racial profiling. thank you. unamerican statute. >> undersecretary of state of kansas and along with russell pearce, co-authored to this law. what is on today was the result of a very bad decision by the justice department. when the decision was made to

arizona for passing a statute that simply attempts to help the federal government to enforce federal law and mirrors the terms of federal law, the federal parliament did an unprecedented degree never before has the department of justice souter a state for trying to assist the federal government, never before. in making that ill-fated decision, does this apartment and into the wall that we saw today. the solicitor general was on the ropes for most of the argument. the reason was because he was asked by the justices multiple times can you give me an example of where the federal government can preempt state really by refusing to enforce federal law or by exercising prosecutorial discretion? he had no answer to that question. this is unprecedented lawsuit brought by the dust as department. the justice department those dancers today were inadequate to the questions asked. hopefully, they fell back to their last discharge him that was if the government of mexico

does not like this law, and maybe that should cause it to be pre-emptive. it was a bad day for the justice department and i think that is appropriate. when we drafted this law, we drafted it so that it merits precisely the terms of federal law. that is important because it asks if there's a conflict between federal law and state law. the state law was drafted so it uses the exact words, the exact phrase as a federal law and nearly marist federal law. there's no way that the rest provisions of the arizona law part going to be granted after watching the argument and the other provisions are also on secure ground as well. it was a good day for arizona and for the u.s. constitution and a very bad day for the administration. >> thank you very much. congressman from northern arizona. i want to applaud team arizona, led by governor jan brewer and

chris, for what he has put together in the state senate. it shows a team effort in regard to identifying a problem and coming up with a solution. but we have to look at we are tired of this scare tactics. i think america resonates that. two out of every three americans actually endorse arizona oppose immigration law. we saw that aspect today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america holds them accountable in regard to that. today is a good day for arizona and a good day for the constitution. i would like to introduce my colleagues, david and tben. >> having actually been in the state legislature and in the treasurer of maricopa county, this is not a new battle for arizona. manabsurditys the newof

of those opposing it and what they have said. people behind this microphone a moment ago claiming to be a lawyer and making up a scenario that could not happen under this law. it is one of my great frustrations as we watched the political theater hoping the court hears the facts and the reality that arizona is following the very law given to it by congress. i believe the court will uphold arizona and uphold the constitution and uphold the citizens' rights of arizona. here's my friend ben. >> thank you very much. the one thing i'm looking forward to is i know the supreme court will actually read the law before passing judgment. as we saw in the beginning of the process when it was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor, eric holder came out against it, secretary janet napolitano came out against it. but when asked if they actually

read the law, they said no. misinformation has been put forth on this lot. it really allows the state and local authorities to enforce federal law. the federal government and this administration should be embracing that cooperation. we should all be working in tandem to enforce federal law. that is what this allows us to do. i think the supreme court will uphold the law and find it constitutional. thank you very much. >> any questions? >> want to take a second. 1070 is a clarification of states' rights in the u.s. constitution. i am 10 the guy am 1070. i have filed an amicus brief with the court as well. i thought the justices clearly had a handle on the issues and

clearly understood that the obama just as the administration was overreaching. there's never been a preemption on the state to enforce these laws. arizona has a direct responsibility to enforce the law whether the federal government likes it or not. i thought they made that clear. >> [inaudible] >> even justice sandra sotomayor made things very clear. it was clear they thought the justice department was overreaching and that the -- pre-emption was there. -- sonya sotomayor. i thought it was a clear victory. i think we will been a minimum of a 5-3 and maybe even greater on some of these things. [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] it has been political sound bites and that's why they never raised it. thanks for coming. it's a great day. >> i am tom. we filed on behalf of the author of 1070, the second brief was on behalf of state legislators from 20 states who wanted their voices heard in support of 1070, and the court hearing went very well. looks like to us the majority of the court uphold key provisions. the obama administration has run away from its earlier incendiary rhetoric suggesting this is about racial profiling. it's clear to me this is a political lawsuit, that the

administration says this lock conflicts with its political parties and has to be thrown out by the court. but that is not to the way our constitution works or how our federal system works. the court will rule in favor of 1070, at least. the provisions least that thank you. >> the supreme court will decide arizona oppose immigration case later in the term. you can listen to the oral argument friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. for more information, go to c- span.org. >> this year's studentcam competition asks students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's first prize winner in high school selected article 1. patents and copyrights is one of the essential powers given to

the federal government in our nation's founding. >> one of the enumerated powers of the congress, patent laws. >> whenever i'm working on a video project, copyright it is important. this goes back to intellectual property. intellectual property is a promise from the government to legally protect creators from having others copy their content for a limited amount of time in exchange for their release in the content into the market. this is done to spur economic growth and encourage progress. this started in england. when it became time to set up a new government, our founding fathers made sure intellectual property was included. >> our founding fathers recognized that in order to overcome the deficiency in

labor, the u.s. would need to rely on innovation. they recognized they needed to provide rewards and they created a clause in the constitution from the very beginning to provide a clear reward for innovation. >> it gives the congress power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective discovers and right things. >> innovation propelled america to become an economic superpower. second the u.s. economy grew at the fastest rate in our history. america surpassed britain to become the world leader. over 500,000 patents issued. is our current patent system still supporting innovation? >> ona lot has changed.

we have gone from an era where most inventions were made in a single field to a world in which collaboration is require. >> the patent system has not been able to keep up. >> there are about 700,000 applications right now that have not even been opened. >> this fast pace of innovation combined with misuse of the patent system by some has flooded our court system. act wasthe actinvent enacted. this is as opposed to having the patent office blowback and look for prior versions of the invention in the rare case someone else invented it first.

a detailed debate ensued. first issue, does this fit the constitutional criteria >> /the intellectual property clause of the constitution gives protection to the. first to the >> -- gives protection to the first to invent. >> can congress change the system? >> some have argued in violate the constitutional provision giving congress the power to promote useful arts but does not -- [unintelligible] >> with that decided, congress had to question whether this bill would promote the progress of science. opponents criticized the bill for possibility of forming small citizens. >> this will further entrench those very powerful interests

with deep pockets and lots of lobbying. >> the new system will make it easier for small businesses and individual inventors. the new system is clear and transparent and will enable the true inventor to file a provisional patent application which ensures that person then has first access to later patent coverage and to know that there's no one else who would be able to later come in and claim rights. >> the bill would eventually pass both houses. >> when thomas edison filed its patent for the phonograph, his application was approved in just seven weeks. and these days that process is taking an average of three years. it is a bill that would put a dent in the huge stack of patent applications waiting for a few. >> the combination of additional resources -- plus a streamlined

system has allowed the patent backlog to go down in the first time in many years. >> we've made progress, but we have a lot more work to do. >> with the explosion of new copyrightable text, photographs, and videos, the field has faced many challenges, mainly online piracy. >> there are a couple pieces of anti-piracy legislation working their way through the capitol hill process as we speak. >> in late 2011, representative smith introduced the stop online piracy act. >> when a rogue website is foreign operated, that's where the act comes in. >> it would create a system to allow the attorney general to block web sites where they allegedly support copyright infringements. supporters of the bill claim it would help eliminate online privacy, however the bill has

faced much backlash. >> the start meddling with the domain names systems. that is the fundamental architecture to the internet's. >> there have been bills that say engaged in, enable or facilitate, or have a high probability of doing so, would harm the internet, according to a opponents. >> what they have said is we will criminalize the structure of the internet itself so if someone posts copyrighted video, we will force the intermediaries, which include google and many others to take down the link. this is known as censorship of the internet links. >> this would include some of the most popular sites on the internet. this would cause much damage. some may use the resources from harm, but there are many more

uses for good, legal, and worthwhile purposes. for me, such an action would eliminate my greatest resources. and a project such as this would be highly dangerous. >> there's a problem, but this is not necessarily the right remedy. >> such a system would not even work. one could simply go-around id by typing in the heat i.t. address. there's a balance of small and big, a balance between users and creators. we must look at the balance. how else can we support the constitutional role for intellectual property, to promote the progress of science and useful arts? >> go to the web site to watch all the winning videos and continue the conversation about today's data entry at our facebook and twitter pages.

>> where is the national public radio table? [applause] you guys are still here. that's good. i cannot remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents' dinner. if president obama and late- night talk-show host jimmy kimmel, will headline the event before an audience of celebrities, journalists, and the white house press corps. if coverage starts at 6:30 with red carpet arrivals and watched the entire dinner on c-span. you can find celebrity guest lists, highlights of past dinners and blog and social media post at the web site. the white house correspondents' dinner, live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. what we arelook at

covering this morning on capitol hill. on c-span, the house gavels in at 10:00 eastern four-member speeches. this afternoon they will begin work on the cybersecurity bill which the white house has threatened to veto. on c-span 2, the senate will continue debate on renewing the violence against women legislation. the senate is in at 9:30 eastern. on c-span 3 the senate agriculture committee will begin work on a phone bill this morning. legislation which changes compensation to farmers is projected to reduce federal spending. >> coming up on "washington journal," we talked to the chairman of the house armed services committee, buck mckeon, and then we are joined to discuss the cost of student loans. later, a